County of Oneida v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York State

Last updated

County of Oneida v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York State
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued October 1, 1984
Decided March 4, 1985
Full case nameCounty of Oneida, New York, et al. v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York State, et al.
Citations470 U.S. 226 ( more )
105 S. Ct. 1245, 84 L. Ed. 2d 169, 53 U.S.L.W. 4225
Case history
Prior464 F.2d 916 (2d Cir. 1972), cert. granted, 412 U.S. 927(1973), rev'd, Oneida Indian Nation of New York v. County of Oneida , 414 U.S. 661 (1974), on remand, 434 F. Supp. 527 (N.D.N.Y. 1977), aff'd, 719 F.2d 525 (2d Cir. 1983), cert. granted, 465 U.S. 1099(1984).
SubsequentRehearing denied, 471 U.S. 1062(1985), on remand, 217 F. Supp. 2d 292 (N.D.N.Y. 2002), motion for relief denied, 214 F.R.D. 83 (N.D.N.Y. 2003), motion for relief granted after remand, 2003 WL 21026573 (N.D.N.Y. 2003).
Holding
Indian tribes have a federal common law cause of action, not preempted by the Nonintercourse Act, for possessory claims based upon aboriginal title; such action is not barred by limitations, abatement, ratification or nonjusticiability, and due to the Eleventh Amendment, there is no ancillary jurisdiction for counties' cross-claims against a state.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Warren E. Burger
Associate Justices
William J. Brennan Jr.  · Byron White
Thurgood Marshall  · Harry Blackmun
Lewis F. Powell Jr.  · William Rehnquist
John P. Stevens  · Sandra Day O'Connor
Case opinions
MajorityPowell, joined by Blackmun, O'Connor (Parts I, II, III, IV, VI joined by Brennan, Marshall; Part V joined by Burger, White, Rehnquist)
Concur/dissentBrennan, joined by Marshall
Concur/dissentStevens, joined by Burger, White, Rehnquist
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. XI; Federal common law; Nonintercourse Act

County of Oneida v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York State, 470 U.S. 226 (1985), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case concerning aboriginal title in the United States. The case, sometimes referred to as Oneida II, was "the first Indian land claim case won on the basis of the Nonintercourse Act." [1]

Contents

The Supreme Court held that Indian tribes have a common law cause of action for possessory land claims based upon aboriginal title, that the Nonintercourse Act did not preempt that cause of action, and that the cause of action was not barred by a statute of limitations, abatement, implicit federal ratification, or nonjusticiability. Four dissenting justices would have held for the counties on the defense of laches, a question which the majority did not reach, but expressed doubts about.

Furthermore, the Court held that, due to the Eleventh Amendment, federal courts could not exercise ancillary jurisdiction over cross-claims by counties against states. Although only two other justices agreed with the entirety of Justice Powell's majority opinion, Brennan and Marshall agreed with Parts I-IV and VI (the Oneida's claims against the counties) and Burger, White, and Rehnquist agreed with Part V (the counties claims against the state), thus forging separate majorities.

The case is often referred to as Oneida II because it is the second of three times the Oneida Indian Nation reached the Supreme Court in litigating its land rights claims. It followed Oneida Indian Nation of New York v. County of Oneida (Oneida I) (1974), holding that there was federal subject-matter jurisdiction, and was followed by City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York (2005), rejecting the tribe's attempt in a later lawsuit to re-assert tribal sovereignty over parcels of land re-acquired by the tribe in fee simple.

Background

This was the second time the Supreme Court had granted certiorari to the Oneida's land claim. Over a decade earlier, in Oneida Indian Nation of New York v. County of Oneida (1974), the Supreme Court had allowed the same suit to proceed by unanimously holding that there was federal subject-matter jurisdiction to hear the claim. [2] Since then, Justices William O. Douglas and Potter Stewart had departed, replaced by John Paul Stevens and Sandra Day O'Connor.

On remand, the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York had found the counties liable to the Oneida for wrongful possession of their lands, awarded damages of $16,694, plus interest, representing the fair rental value of the land in question for the 2-year period specified in the complaint. Finally, the District Court required New York state to indemnify the counties. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed. [3]

The Supreme Court granted certiorari "to determine whether an Indian tribe may have a live cause of action for a violation of its possessory rights that occurred 175 years ago," ultimately agreeing with the District Court and Second Circuit that the tribe may. [4] On appeal, the counties did not dispute the District Court's findings that the Oneida held aboriginal title to the lands in question, and that the 1795 conveyances of the lands to the state violated the Nonintercourse Act. [5] The counties instead argued that the Nonintercourse Act preempted the Oneida's cause of action, that any cause of action was time barred, non-justifiable, and abated, and that any conveyance was ratified by the federal government. [6]

Change of counsel

The case was initiated by George Shattuck of Bond, Schoeneck & King(BS&K), on a contingency fee basis rather than as a pro bono matter. [7] The retainer agreement between the firm and the tribe, approved (as required) by the Department of the Interior, provided that the firm would litigate the tribe's Nonintercourse Act claim only against the government and would not sue private land owners; another firm was handling the tribe's claim before the Indian Claims Commission. [8]

Shattuck argued Oneida I alone before the Supreme Court. [9] The Native American Rights Fund (NARF), which had assisted initially assisted the firm, [10] served as co-counsel in the trial after the Oneida I decision [11] and took over completely on the second appeal. [12] The NARF also filed another suit behalf of the Oneidas, pressing the Oneida's possessory claims against landowners over additional lands. [13]

As of March 2011, BS&K had yet to receive any attorney's fees from the tribe. [14] On July 11, 2011, the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York ruled that BS&K was entitled to $5,174.54 in fees; the district court reduced the fees to that number after finding that BS&K had breached its duty of loyalty to the Oneida's by also representing the Canadian claimants. [15]

Opinion of the Court

The majority opinion by Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr. recognized the Oneida's federal common law cause of action, and rejected all the counties' affirmative defenses.

Cause of action

The Second Circuit held that the Oneida had both a federal common law cause of action and an implied cause of action under the Nonintercourse Act of 1793 (the version that governed the 1795 transaction). The Supreme Court did not reach the statutory question because it held that "the Indians' common-law right to sue is firmly established." [6] The court recognized that "[n]umerous decisions of this Court prior to Oneida I recognized at least implicitly that Indians have a federal common-law right to sue to enforce their aboriginal land rights," citing a string of examples back to Johnson v. McIntosh (1823). [16] The court concluded:

[W]e hold that the Oneidas can maintain this action for violation of their possessory rights based on federal common law. [17]

As to the Nonintercourse Act, the Court held that it did not preempt the cause of action because "[t]he Nonintercourse Act of 1793 does not speak directly to the question of remedies for unlawful conveyances of Indian land." [18] The court noted that the Act "did not establish a comprehensive remedial plan for dealing with violations of Indian property rights" and that there was "no indication in the legislative history that Congress intended to pre-empt common-law remedies." [18] Because the Act contained no remedial provisions, and because subsequent Congressional enactments contemplated possessory land suits by Indians, the Court found that preemption was not indicated. [19] The court reviewed its recent aboriginal title decisions, and reiterated its statement in Oneida I that the Act merely "put in statutory form what was or came to be the accepted rule." [20]

Statute of limitations
Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr. sustained the Oneida's federal common law cause of action and rejected all of the counties' affirmative defenses. US Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell - 1976 official portrait.jpg
Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr. sustained the Oneida's federal common law cause of action and rejected all of the counties' affirmative defenses.

Where there is no statute of limitations for a federal cause of action, the general rule is to borrow the analogous state statute of limitations unless such would be inconsistent with the underlying federal policies. [21] However, here, the Court held that "borrowing of a state limitations period in these cases would be inconsistent with federal policy." [22] Reviewing Congressional actions in the context of the Indian Claims Commission, the Court concluded that "It would be a violation of Congress' will were we to hold that a state statute of limitations period should be borrowed in these circumstances." [23]

Laches

The majority noted that the four dissenting justices would have barred the Oneida's claim under laches. However, the majority noted that "we do not reach this issue today" because the District Court had ruled against the counties laches defense, and the counties had not raised the issue in the Second Circuit. [23] In a footnote, the majority opined that "application of the equitable defense of laches in an action at law would be novel indeed." [24] The same footnote cited Ewert v. Bluejacket, 259 U.S. 129 (1922) for the proposition that laches "cannot properly have application to give vitality to a void deed and to bar the rights of Indian wards in lands subject to statutory restrictions." [24] The majority called the application of laches "questionable" and noted that such "would appear to be inconsistent with established federal policy." [24]

In its final footnote, the majority noted that, on "[t]he question whether equitable considerations should limit the relief available to the present day Oneida Indians . . ., we express no opinion as to . . . the final disposition of this case should Congress not exercise its authority to resolve these far-reaching Indian claims." [25]

Abatement

The counties advanced the theory that the causes of action under Nonintercourse Acts of 1790, 1793, 1796, 1799, and 1802 (unlike the final 1833 version) abated upon the expiration of the statutes. However, the Court held that because the different versions of the Act contained "substantially the same restraint on the alienation of Indian lands . . . , the precedents of this Court compel the conclusion that the Oneidas' cause of action has not abated." [26]

Ratification

The counties advanced the theory that later treaties between the Oneidas and the United States, which ceded different lands to New York, constituted a ratification of the earlier conveyances (and thus those conveyances were in compliance with the Nonintercourse Act). The Court found this interpretation untenable under the canons of construction of federal Indian law, which provide that, inter alia, "treaties should be construed liberally in favor of the Indians." [27]

Nonjusticiability

The counties final argument was that the Oneida's land claim was a nonjusticiable political question. The Court found this argument to be non-meritorious in light of similar Indian law precedents. [28]

Ancillary jurisdiction

The final question before the Court was whether the District Court rightly exercised ancillary jurisdiction over the counties' cross-claim against the state for indemnification. The Court rejected, as having "no basis in law," the Second Circuit's theory that "by violating a federal statute, the State consented to suit in federal court by any party on any claim, state or federal, growing out of the same nucleus of operative facts as the statutory violation." [29] Although the counties' cross-claim would meet the traditional criteria for ancillary jurisdiction, the Court found those criteria foreclosed by the Eleventh Amendment. [29]

Conclusion

The Court concluded by remarking upon the "potential consequences of affirmance," arguing that "this litigation makes abundantly clear the necessity for congressional action" to extinguish Indian title by statute. [30] In the words of the Court:

One would have thought that claims dating back for more than a century and a half would have been barred long ago. As our opinion indicates, however, neither petitioners nor we have found any applicable statute of limitations or other relevant legal basis for holding that the Oneidas' claims are barred or otherwise have been satisfied. [30]

Brennan and Marshall

Justices William J. Brennan, Jr. and Thurgood Marshall joined the entirety of the majority's opinion, except the ancillary jurisdiction portion. In a brief opinion, Brennan reiterated his view from Yeomans v. Kentucky (1975) that the Eleventh Amendment "bars federal court suits against States only by citizens of other States." [31]

Stevens, Burger, White, and Rehnquist

Justice John Paul Stevens would have barred the Oneida's claim under the equitable doctrine of laches. John Paul Stevens, SCOTUS photo portrait.jpg
Justice John Paul Stevens would have barred the Oneida's claim under the equitable doctrine of laches.

Justice John Paul Stevens, joined by Chief Justice Warren E. Burger and Justices Byron White and William Rehnquist joined the majority's opinion as to No. 83-1240 (the cross-claims against the state) but dissented as to No. 83-1065 (the Oneida's claims against the counties). [32] The dissenters would have barred the Oneida's claim under the equitable doctrine of laches, noting:

[In 1795, the Oneidas] made no attempt to assert the claim, and their successors in interest waited 175 years before bringing suit to avoid a 1795 conveyance that the Tribe freely made, for a valuable consideration. The absence of any evidence of deception, concealment, or interference with the Tribe's right to assert a claim, together with the societal interests that always underlie statutes of repose-particularly when title to real property is at stake-convince me that this claim is barred by the extraordinary passage of time. It is worthy of emphasis that this claim arose when George Washington was the President of the United States. [33]

The dissenters noted various historical examples of the Court applying laches to Indian equitable claims, and argued that the doctrine should also be applied to the action of ejectment (which they admitted was an action at law, not equity). [34] Specifically, they cited "[t]hree decisions of this Court illustrate the application of the doctrine of laches to actions seeking to set aside conveyances made in violation of federal law." [35] Moreover, the dissenters quoted Lewis v. Marshall, 30 U.S. 470 (1831), for the proposition that:

The best interests of society require that causes of action should not be deferred an unreasonable time. This remark is peculiarly applicable to land titles. Nothing so much retards the growth and prosperity of a country as insecurity of titles to real estate. Labor is paralysed where the enjoyment of its fruits is uncertain; and litigation without limit produces ruinous consequences to individuals. [34]

The dissent concluded:

The Court, no doubt, believes that it is undoing a grave historical injustice, but in doing so it has caused another, which only Congress may now rectify. [36]

The dissent did not address the other defenses raised by the counties.

Subsequent developments

Remand

On remand, after decades of settlement efforts, Judge McCurn entered judgments of $15,994 against Oneida County and $18,970 against Madison County, representing the full fair market rental value, minus set-offs for improvements, plus pre-judgment interest. [37] The following year, McCurn denied cross-motions for relief from the judgment–seeking to correct various mathematical errors previously made by Judge Port—due to a pending appeal before the Second Circuit. [38] After a stipulated remand, McCurn granted both motions. [39]

Companion cases

Oneida Indian Nation of New York v. New York (2d Cir. 1988)

Another Oneida claim, challenging the pre-constitutional conveyance of another 6-million-acre (24,000 km2) tract, was rejected by the Second Circuit in 1988, on the grounds that the Confederation Congress Proclamation of 1783 had neither the authority nor the intent to limit the acquisition of Indian lands within the borders of the states. [40]

City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York (U.S. 2005)

After decades, the Oneida became frustrated by the failure of the case to settle. Instead, they began to purchase land within the claim area in fee simple, asserting sovereignty over the re-acquired parcels and refusing to pay property tax. In City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York (2005), the Supreme Court held that laches barred the re-assertion of sovereignty over ancestral land re-acquired in fee simple; the Court did not consider whether the original aboriginal title over the disputed parcels was validly extinguished, and thus did not disturb its holding in Oneida II. [41]

On remand, the district court held that, although the counties could tax the Oneida, due to tribal sovereign immunity, they could not foreclose on land held by the tribe in satisfaction of these unpaid taxes. The Second Circuit affirmed, but two of the judges urged the Supreme Court to overrule some of its tribal sovereign immunity precedents. After the Supreme Court granted certiorari, the tribe passed an ordinance consenting to taxation, and the Court vacated and remanded. [42]

Oneida Indian Nation of New York v. County of Oneida (2d Cir. 2010)

Oneida I and Oneida II were litigated as test cases by both sides; the Oneidas suit against the counties for 200 years of damages was stayed pending its resolution. After settlement efforts, that suit resumed in 2000. [43] In a similar suit by a different tribe, the Second Circuit adopted the view of the four dissenting Oneida II justices in Cayuga Indian Nation of New York v. Pataki (2005). [44] The same laches defense defeated the larger Oneida claim. [45] The Oneida and the United States petitioned the Supreme Court for certiorari on May 16, 2011. The Court denied certiorari on October 17, with Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor dissenting from the denial. [46]

Notes

  1. ↑ Vecsey & Starna, 1988, at 145.
  2. ↑ Oneida Indian Nation of New York v. County of Oneida (Oneida I), 414 U.S. 661 (1974).
  3. ↑ 719 F.2d 525 (2d Cir. 1983).
  4. ↑ 470 U.S. at 230.
  5. ↑ 470 U.S. at 232–33.
  6. 1 2 470 U.S. at 233.
  7. ↑ Shattuck, 1991, at 6.
  8. ↑ Shattuck, 1991, at 9–11, 26, 39, 41, 73, 94, 202.
  9. ↑ Shattuck, 1991, at 34.
  10. ↑ Shattuck, 1991, at ix, 29–31, 33, 37, 59, 61, 64.
  11. ↑ Shattuck, 1991, at 43, 48.
  12. ↑ Shattuck, 1991, at xii, xix.
  13. ↑ Shattuck, 1991, at 75–79.
  14. ↑ Glen Coin, Syracuse law firm wants more money for work it did early on in the Oneida land claim case The Post-Standard, March 11, 2011.
  15. ↑ Oneida Indian Nation v. Cnty. of Oneida, Nos. 5:70–CV–0035(LEK), 5:74–CV–187 (LEK/DRH)., 2011 WL 2728388 (N.D.N.Y. July 12, 2011).
  16. ↑ 470 U.S. at 235.
  17. ↑ 470 U.S. at 236.
  18. 1 2 470 U.S. at 237.
  19. ↑ 470 U.S. at 237–39.
  20. ↑ 470 U.S. at 240 (quoting Oneida I, 414 U.S. at 678).
  21. ↑ 470 U.S. at 240.
  22. ↑ 470 U.S. at 241.
  23. 1 2 470 U.S. at 244.
  24. 1 2 3 470 U.S. at 245 n.16.
  25. ↑ 470 U.S. at 254 n.27.
  26. ↑ 470 U.S. at 246.
  27. ↑ 470 U.S. at 247.
  28. ↑ 470 U.S. at 248–50.
  29. 1 2 470 U.S. at 251.
  30. 1 2 470 U.S. at 253.
  31. ↑ 470 U.S. at 254 (Brennan, J., joined by Marshall, J., concurring).
  32. ↑ 470 U.S. at 255 (Stevens, J., joined by Burger, C.J., White, J., and Rehnquist, J., dissenting).
  33. ↑ 470 U.S. at 255–56.
  34. 1 2 470 U.S. at 256.
  35. ↑ 470 U.S. at 263.
  36. ↑ 470 U.S. at 273.
  37. ↑ Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y. v. Cnty. of Oneida, 217 F. Supp. 2d 292 (N.D.N.Y. 2002).
  38. ↑ Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y. v. Cnty. of Oneida, 214 F.R.D. 83 (N.D.N.Y. 2003).
  39. ↑ Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y. v. Cnty. of Oneida, No. 70-cv-35, 2003 WL 21026573 (N.D.N.Y. Apr. 28, 2003).
  40. ↑ Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y. v. New York , 860 F.2d 1145 (2d Cir. 1988).
  41. ↑ City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y. , 544 U.S. 197 (2005).
  42. ↑ Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y. v. Madison Cnty., 401 F. Supp. 2d 219 (N.D.N.Y. 2005), motion to amend denied, 235 F.R.D. 559 (N.D.N.Y. 2006), aff'd, 605 F.3d 149 (2nd Cir. 2010), cert. granted, 131 S. Ct. 459 (2010), vacated and remanded sub nom.Madison Cnty. v. Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y., 131 S. Ct. 704 (2011) (per curiam).
  43. ↑ Marble Hill Oneida Indians v. Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y. State, 62 F. App'x 389 (2d Cir. 2003) (affirming denial of Marble Hill Oneida Indian's motion to intervene); Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y. v. New York, 194 F. Supp. 2d 104 (N.D.N.Y. 2002) (striking some, and declining to strike other, affirmative defenses, and dismissing some, and declining to dismiss other counterclaims); Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y. v. New York, 201 F.R.D. 64 (N.D.N.Y. 2001) (granting New York Brotherton Indian Nation's motion to intervene); Oneida Indian Nation of New York v. Cnty. of Oneida, 132 F. Supp. 2d 71 (N.D.N.Y. 2000) (denying injunction against state-court challenge to Gaming Compact); Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y. v. Cnty. of Oneida, No. 74-cv-187, 2000 WL 33682810 (N.D.N.Y. June 22, 2000) (terminating mediation order); Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y. v. Cnty. of Oneida, 199 F.R.D. 61 (N.D.N.Y. 2000) (granting in part, and denying in part, tribe's motion to amend complaint); Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y. v. Cnty. of Oneida, No. 74-cv-187, 1999 WL 1281502 (N.D.N.Y. Dec. 23 1999) (deeming as withdrawn the portions of the litigation related to Upstate Citizens for Equality's challenge to the Oneida's casino).
  44. ↑ Cayuga Indian Nation of N.Y. v. Pataki , 413 F.3d 266 (2d Cir. 2005).
  45. ↑ Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y. v. New York, 500 F. Supp. 2d 128 (N.D.N.Y. 2007) (holding that laches bars possessory, but not non-possessory, claims), aff'd in part, rev'd in part, and remanded sub nom. Oneida Indian Nation of New York v. County of Oneida , 617 F.3d 114 (2d Cir. 2010) (holding that laches bars both possessory and non-possessory claims).
  46. ↑ Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y. v. Cnty. of Oneida, 132 S. Ct. 452 (2011); United States v. New York, 132 S. Ct. 452 (2011).

Related Research Articles

The Nonintercourse Act is the collective name given to six statutes passed by the United States Congress in 1790, 1793, 1796, 1799, 1802, and 1834 to set Amerindian boundaries of reservations. The various acts were also intended to regulate commerce between settlers and the natives. The most notable provisions of the act regulate the inalienability of aboriginal title in the United States, a continuing source of litigation for almost 200 years. The prohibition on purchases of Indian lands without the approval of the federal government has its origins in the Royal Proclamation of 1763 and the Confederation Congress Proclamation of 1783.

Upstate Citizens for Equality (UCE) was a citizens' rights group based in Verona, New York, that opposed Oneida Indian Nation (OIN) land claims, the Turning Stone Resort Casino, the OIN's application to the US Interior Department to place 13,000 acres (53 km2) into federal trust, OIN sovereignty, and what it viewed as flawed federal Indian policy. The group organized protests at the OIN's gas stations and casino condemning OIN's sovereign status and unique relationship with the US government and New York State.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Oneida Indian Nation</span> Indigenous tribe of North America

The Oneida Indian Nation (OIN) or Oneida Nation is a federally recognized tribe of Oneida people in the United States. The tribe is headquartered in Verona, New York, where the tribe originated and held territory prior to European colonialism, and continues to hold territory today. They are Iroquoian-speaking people, and one of the Five Nations of the Iroquois Confederacy, or Haudenosaunee. The Oneida are known as "America's first allies" as they were the first, and one of the few, Iroquois nations to support the American cause. Three other federally recognized Oneida tribes operate in locations where they migrated or were removed to during and after the American Revolutionary War: one in Wisconsin in the United States, and two in Ontario, Canada.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Stockbridge–Munsee Community</span> Federally-recognized Native American tribe

Federal Power Commission v. Tuscarora Indian Nation, 362 U.S. 99 (1960), was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court that determined that the Federal Power Commission was authorized to take lands owned by the Tuscarora Indian tribe by eminent domain under the Federal Power Act for a hydroelectric power project, upon payment of just compensation.

City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York, 544 U.S. 197 (2005), was a Supreme Court of the United States case in which the Court held that repurchase of traditional tribal lands 200 years later did not restore tribal sovereignty to that land. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote the majority opinion.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Aboriginal title in the United States</span> First country to recognize aboriginal title

The United States was the first jurisdiction to acknowledge the common law doctrine of aboriginal title. Native American tribes and nations establish aboriginal title by actual, continuous, and exclusive use and occupancy for a "long time." Individuals may also establish aboriginal title, if their ancestors held title as individuals. Unlike other jurisdictions, the content of aboriginal title is not limited to historical or traditional land uses. Aboriginal title may not be alienated, except to the federal government or with the approval of Congress. Aboriginal title is distinct from the lands Native Americans own in fee simple and occupy under federal trust.

Oneida Indian Nation of New York v. County of Oneida, 414 U.S. 661 (1974), is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court concerning aboriginal title in the United States. The original suit in this matter was the first modern-day Native American land claim litigated in the federal court system rather than before the Indian Claims Commission. It was also the first to go to final judgement.

Seneca Nation of Indians v. Christy, 162 U.S. 283 (1896), was the first litigation of aboriginal title in the United States by a tribal plaintiff in the Supreme Court of the United States since Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831). It was the first such litigation by an indigenous plaintiff since Fellows v. Blacksmith (1857) and its companion case of New York ex rel. Cutler v. Dibble (1858). The New York courts held that the 1788 Phelps and Gorham Purchase did not violate the Nonintercourse Act, one of the provisions of which prohibits purchases of Indian lands without the approval of the federal government, and that the Seneca Nation of New York was barred by the state statute of limitations from challenging the transfer of title. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to review the merits of lower court ruling because of the adequate and independent state grounds doctrine.

<i>Joint Tribal Council of the Passamaquoddy Tribe v. Morton</i> United States court decision recognizing Native American rights

Joint Tribal Council of the Passamaquoddy Tribe v. Morton, 528 F.2d 370, was a landmark decision regarding aboriginal title in the United States. The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held that the Nonintercourse Act applied to the Passamaquoddy and Penobscot, non-federally-recognized Indian tribes, and established a trust relationship between those tribes and the federal government that the State of Maine could not terminate.

Confederation Congress Proclamation of 1783 was a proclamation by the Congress of the Confederation dated September 22, 1783 prohibiting the extinguishment of aboriginal title in the United States without the consent of the federal government. The policy underlying the proclamation was inaugurated by the Proclamation of 1763, and continued after the ratification of the United States Constitution by the Nonintercourse Acts of 1790, 1793, 1796, 1799, 1802, and 1833.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Narragansett land claim</span> Litigation of aboriginal title in Rhode Island, US

The Narragansett land claim was one of the first litigations of aboriginal title in the United States in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark Oneida Indian Nation of New York v. County of Oneida (1974), or Oneida I, decision. The Narragansett claimed a few thousand acres of land in and around Charlestown, Rhode Island, challenging a variety of early 19th century land transfers as violations of the Nonintercourse Act, suing both the state and private land owners.

<i>Cayuga Indian Nation of New York v. Pataki</i> American legal case

Cayuga Indian Nation of New York v. Pataki, 413 F.3d 266, is an important precedent in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit for the litigation of aboriginal title in the United States. Applying the U.S. Supreme Court's recent ruling in City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York (2005), a divided panel held that the equitable doctrine of laches bars all tribal land claims sounding in ejectment or trespass, for both tribal plaintiffs and the federal government as plaintiff-intervenor.

Fellows v. Blacksmith, 60 U.S. 366 (1857), is a United States Supreme Court decision involving Native American law. John Blacksmith, a Tonawanda Seneca, sued agents of the Ogden Land Company for common law claims of trespass, assault, and battery after he was forcibly evicted from his sawmill by the Company's agents. The Court affirmed a judgement in Blacksmith's favor, notwithstanding the fact that the Seneca had executed an Indian removal treaty and the Company held the exclusive right to purchase to the land by virtue of an interstate compact ratified by Congress.

New York ex rel. Cutler v. Dibble, 62 U.S. 366 (1858), was a companion case to the more well-known Fellows v. Blacksmith (1857). At the time Fellows was decided, this case had reached the U.S. Supreme Court but had not yet been argued.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Aboriginal title in New York</span>

Aboriginal title in New York refers to treaties, purchases, laws and litigation associated with land titles of aboriginal peoples of New York, in particular, to dispossession of those lands by actions of European Americans. The European purchase of lands from indigenous populations dates back to the legendary Dutch purchase of Manhattan in 1626, "the most famous land transaction of all." More than any other state, New York disregarded the Confederation Congress Proclamation of 1783 and the follow-on Nonintercourse Acts, purchasing the majority of the state directly from the Iroquois nations without federal involvement or ratification.

South Carolina v. Catawba Indian Tribe, Inc., 476 U.S. 498 (1986), is an important U.S. Supreme Court precedent for aboriginal title in the United States decided in the wake of County of Oneida v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York State (1985). Distinguishing Oneida II, the Court held that federal policy did not preclude the application of a state statute of limitations to the land claim of a tribe that had been terminated, such as the Catawba tribe.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Aboriginal title in California</span> Land rights of indigenous peoples

Aboriginal title in California refers to the aboriginal title land rights of the indigenous peoples of California. The state is unique in that no Native American tribe in California is the counterparty to a ratified federal treaty. Therefore, all the Indian reservations in the state were created by federal statute or executive order.

The Indian Claims Limitations Act of 1982 (ICLA) is a United States federal statute of limitations that governs some types of claims by Native American tribes and claims by the federal government on behalf of tribes.

Aboriginal land title in New Mexico is unique among aboriginal title in the United States. Congressional legislation was passed to define such title after the United States acquired this territory following war with Mexico (1846–1848). But the Supreme Court of the New Mexico Territory and the United States Supreme Court held that the Nonintercourse Act did not restrict the alienability of Pueblo lands.

References

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.